No my side doesn't hate the Second but speaking for myself, I support it. Regardless, is it okay to trash the Fourth? This is why our elections have
devolved into WWE level entertainment. "You don't like the Second so screw all the amendments." Good grief.

Funny that you support stop and frisk nationwide but you're worried about SJW's. You're priorities are all out of whack.

Let's see...one (stop n frisk) disarms street thugs, the other (SJW's) enables street rioting arsonists. I get the picture perfectly clear and it is
all too obvious which one is for good and which one is for violence.

No my side doesn't hate the Second but speaking for myself, I support it. Regardless, is it okay to trash the Fourth? This is why our elections have
devolved into WWE level entertainment. "You don't like the Second so screw all the amendments." Good grief.

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win,” Trump said Friday during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so
when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”
...
“We’re going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post,
which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re
totally protected,” he said. “We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued
before.”

“We should arrest the people that do that because they’re participating in crime,” Trump continued. “We should arrest them. Instead they
say, ‘Oh no, you can’t do anything, that’s freedom of expression.”

Yes, people being "totally protected" by the first amendment just pisses Trump off. What other constitutional changes will he make - or guarantee with
an appointment to the Supreme Court?

I'm not ok with stop and frisk, no not at all - gotta go by the constitution on this one. I'm not sure why politicians always come up with bad
solutions to real problems. Dems and Reps both do that all the time. E.g., Obamacare is a solution that was worse than the original problem. Isis was
a solution that was worse than the original issue (Syria).

I don't understand where the 'nationwide' stop & frisk is stated. I understood that he was specifically talking about Chicago's black on black crime.
If they applied the stop and frisk like they did in New York, would this not possibly assist in saving many lives in South Chicago? I could see if it
did severely reduce the black on black violence that such a tactic would be phased into other notorious sections of American cities. How is this
considered a bad thing?

As far as another's comment on concealed weapons areas...my understanding is that individual will immediately tell an officer he has a concealed
weapons permit. The officer may remove the weapon and verify that he has such a permit. Most law abiding concealed gun permit owners understand the
need to follow the law to the letter.

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.

No it doesn't, go tell New York City that and ask why they were able to do it.

There are laws for carrying guns in public. Police enforce those laws.

If you want to carry in public, you get a permit and by signing the permit you agree that you can be checked and must show the permit. Now are you
going to tell everyone that if you choose to not get a permit you cannot be checked but those with a permit can? That is preposterous.

Some cities do not allow civilians permits at all so nobody can carry in public. NYC was like that but gun violence on the streets were high so they
did a stop a frisk policy and gun violence was drastically reduced. To a SJW that must be awful, how dare police do their jobs and reduce
violence.

He made his statement in response to an audience member's question about what the New York businessman would do to reduce crime in predominantly
black communities across the nation, said the two people, Geoff Betts and Connie Tucker.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I missed the part where he proposed "nation wide" stop and frisk.

Yeah, I don't think Trump said "nationwide". But implementing a violation of the Constitution ANYWHERE in the US is still a violation of the
constitutional. Maybe he just means in the "black community".

The interview will air tonight.

Audience member: I had a question about, there’s been a lot of violence in the black community. I want to know, what would you do to help stop
that violence — you know, black-on-black crime?

Trump: I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well, and you have to be proactive and, you
know, you really help people sort-of change their mind automatically. You understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on in
Chicago. I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City is was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was
incredible, the way that worked. So I think that could be one step you could do.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.